Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for telling me that 5,000 jobs could be at risk as a result of the Scottish National party's policies. We have created 200,000 jobs in Scotland over the past 10 years. Any economic policy or any policy pursued by the Scottish nationalists that puts jobs at Scotland in risk would be taken very seriously by the Scottish people. I hope that the Scottish National party will think again before it puts more jobs at risk in the Scottish economy.

Christopher Fraser: An article in the  Eastern Daily Press yesterday states that one in 10 East Anglian families cannot afford food or medicine, or risk eviction because they are
	"too poor to pay rent".
	Research shows that that is due in part to poor financial management and inadequate saving. Does the Minister accept that he needs to do much more to encourage people on low incomes in constituencies like mine to save money and learn how to manage their finances more effectively?

John Healey: We need to do a good deal more not just in constituencies like the hon. Gentleman's, but right across the country. I hope that he will recognise the potential of the child trust fund, particularly alongside the greater education on financial affairs that we are looking to put in place through the education system. I hope that he and his party will be prepared to weigh in and support the efforts that we are making in that regard.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Foreign direct investment in Britain from the rest of the world has been very high indeed. Of company headquarters located in Britain over the past 10 years, about 400 have been located from the rest of the world as regional or world headquarters to Britain. In France, Germany and Ireland the figure is less than 100, so we have done well. Maintaining our rate of growth in exports is crucial, as is maintaining business investment at a high level. It is by these means that we will maintain and extend the industrial and services sector of the economy, and hopefully bring additional jobs to my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mark Todd: One of the critical needs that everyone has is the ability to gain access to the money in their bank account free of charge. Following the initiative of the Treasury Select Committee in proposing an extension of free access cash machines to areas that currently lack them, I have proposed two in my constituency, in Midway and Hartshorne. Will the Minister tell us what progress has been made in extending the network of free access cash machines?

John Healey: The hardest burden for many families to bear are interest rates that run out of control, which they experienced under the previous Government, and inflation running out of control, which they also experienced under the previous Government. In contrast, the consumer prices index of inflation remains low by historical standards, at 2.5 per cent.—incidentally, it fell by 0.6 per cent. last month. Consistent with the Treasury's forecast in the Budget, and with the Bank of England's May inflation report, independent forecasters expect inflation to return to its target level by the end of the year.

Jack Straw: I endorse what the right hon. Lady says about the Falkland Islands. All of us, whether we were Members of Parliament or not, remember the dreadful events that led, in the end, to the liberation of the Falklands, and the terrible loss of life among British soldiers and personnel and, I may say, among Argentine personnel, most of whom were conscripts. As I have said before, those of us who were Members of Parliament recognise the steadfast courage and leadership shown by Margaret Thatcher. I salute that again, but above all I salute the courage and bravery of those who fell and of all who fought in that military action.
	The situation in Gaza is indeed grave. Violence, whoever is causing it, provides no answer to the deep-seated problems in the occupied territories; nor does it provide any future. There is a heavy responsibility on Hamas and Fatah, and on the Government of Israel, to recognise, in their own separate ways, their responsibilities to work towards the only peaceful prospect for that area: a political process leading to negotiations and the fulfilment of United Nations resolutions. I will certainly bear in mind what the right hon. Lady says about the need for a debate and, I might add, a statement before that.
	I note what the right hon. Lady says about honour killings. The term is a misnomer as there is no honour in those crimes, which are despicable, as are all murders and crimes that take place within families, regardless of the ethnic background of the people involved. It is our responsibility to ensure that the police, and the communities, do all that they can to ensure that such crimes do not take place.
	The report published today on vulnerable elderly people is of profound importance. I am glad that it was sponsored by the Government, as it contains much food for thought about how we recognise the signs that vulnerable elderly people are being abused, and about what better measures we can take to detect those who abuse elderly people in the guise of family carers. The problem is very difficult to get at, but I hope that the report will generate a great deal of discussion and, in time, action too.
	Unusually, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead is getting a bit ahead of herself with the EU treaty proposals. Nothing has yet been agreed. I am afraid that I was not privy to the discussions between President Sarkozy and the Prime Minister, but my right hon. Friend has set out his interpretation of them already. It is absolutely right for any British Prime Minister to engage in discussions with his opposite numbers in Europe. In the unlikely event—and it is becoming more and more unlikely—that the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) ended up as Prime Minister, I hope that he would do the same; otherwise he would be selling this country short. By the way, he would be assisted in his attempts to persuade Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy of his point of view if he decided to keep the Conservatives in the centre-right European People's party, instead of attaching his party to a far-right rump currently occupied only by the very far-right conservatives in the Czech Republic.
	If previous experience is anything to go by, I am sure that the Conservative party will find plenty of opportunities to debate a referendum on the EU constitution, but the real question is whether there would be any significant transfer of power from the UK to Brussels as a result of any treaty. When the matter was discussed before and after the 2005 election, I spelled out endlessly that much in the constitution works to Britain's advantage. I suggest that the whole House examine the proposals on their merits, and not anticipate decisions that have not been taken yet.
	The right hon. Member for Maidenhead asked about HIPs. In her statement in May, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government made it clear that HIPs for larger houses of four or more bedrooms will come into force on 1 August, and that they will be phased in for other properties after that. Moreover, I do not think that there will be any difficulty in determining whether a bedroom is a bedroom.
	The right hon. Lady's final question was about the changes of name of Government Departments. The Conservatives made changes to how Departments were organised—some of them perfectly sensible—but we are proud of the delivery that those Departments have been able to achieve since 1997. For example, Britain has, in many ways, enjoyed its best economic record since records began, and there are now 2 million people more people in work and 760,000 fewer unemployed. Investment is at record levels, education standards are at record highs and we have had record improvements in the health service.
	I am surprised that the shadow Leader of the House did not continue the leadership theme begun by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. Perhaps the Conservatives have learned a lesson about that, because I was hoping to have an opportunity to give a wider audience to the blessed Simon Heffer of  The Daily Telegraph—

Bernard Jenkin: Although the police in our country face daily perils, for which I salute them, the tasks and hazards involved in making arrests and detentions in, say, Brixton pale in comparison with the tasks and hazards faced by our armed servicemen trying to arrest insurgents and terrorists in, say, Basra. It is desirable that there should be different legal jurisdictions for those activities, reflecting the very different circumstances. May I take it that that is still the Government's view? If it is, what are they going to do about the House of Lords ruling that has applied the Human Rights Act 1998—on top on the tri-service discipline legislation and the International Criminal Court—to all the legal problems faced by our armed servicemen, thus putting them in an increasingly impossible position? I invite the Leader of the House to allow a debate on this subject. Is there any chance that a Minister will give a statement to the House at an early date?

Julie Morgan: On Saturday, the Cardiff-based Actors Workshop will be putting on extracts of a play called "The Lady of Burma" to mark the 62nd birthday of Aung San Suu Kyi, who is her 12th year of house arrest in Burma. When may we have a debate to discuss what more the Government can do to end that deplorable situation?

Jack Straw: Of course there is a serious problem, but if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health had come before the House today and said, "A report has just been published; this is what we're going to do," the Liberal Democrats would have been the first to complain that we had not had a chance to digest the report and come to sensible conclusions on it. They need to get serious. Of course the issue is urgent, but the report is the first objective scientific assessment of the prevalence of abuse against the elderly. The prerequisite for effective action, which is what we all want, is to consider the report carefully, although as quickly as possible.

Tony Baldry: Could we have an urgent debate on the Chicago convention on international civil aviation, because the only way in which we can reconcile repeated ministerial statements that the Government have no evidence of detainees being rendered through the United Kingdom with the evidence collected by the Council of Europe, the European Parliament—the most recent instance was on 2 June at Mildenhall—of prisoners being rendered through the UK is by reference to a loophole in the convention whereby the US Government are not obliged to inform the UK Government if they are rendering prisoners through UK territory? That is a stain on us.

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not comment specifically, as I know no more about that case than what he has told us, but it sounds as if it is a serious matter. Discretion rests with courts to deal with non-material errors without having to require acquittal in certain circumstances. I will pass on his concerns to my right hon. Friends the Attorney-General and the Secretary of State for Justice. If he can provide me with more information, I will follow this up.

Philip Hollobone: May we have an urgent statement from the Minister for Industry and the Regions about the proposed closure at the end of this month of the Kettering Business Venture Trust, and the role of the East Midlands Development Agency in its demise? KBVT has been helping local businesses start up over the past 22 years, creating thousands of jobs in and around the Kettering constituency. At a time when 43,000 new jobs are required in north Northamptonshire in order to comply with the Government's sustainable communities plan, the loss of KBVT comes at entirely the wrong time. The Government should step in urgently and save this worthwhile local enterprise agency.

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. I have some information, though not all of it. I am happy to provide him with the information that I have, and I will also follow up the point that he raises. Let me make this clear, and I am sure I speak for my righthon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence: if information can be made available to the press, it ought to be made available to the House.

Don Foster: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not just going to leave it at the shadow Secretary of State, as all Members present are clearly showing an interest in this matter. The amendment will change the range of people who will be identified for assistance through the targeted help scheme. Although the ruling by Madam Speaker means that we cannot hear about progress for all those people, does he agree that it would be helpful to hear what progress is being made in providing help to the new group of people who will covered as a result of the new definition in the amendment?

Edward Vaizey: The hon. Gentleman makes the excellent move of promoting Madam Deputy Speaker to Madam Speaker, no doubt in order to incur her goodwill when he rises to speak on the amendment. May I also congratulate him on his bravery in wearing the Olympic logo—

Adam Afriyie: If a district council that picks up this responsibility does not already hold the data and is not in a position to assist because it was not expecting to, there must be some form of financial implication for it, even if it is allocating to one person the job of looking into these matters and discovering where the subscribers or non-subscribers may be.

Edward Vaizey: My hon. Friend is right. When the Under-Secretary was questioned about the matter in Committee, he skirted around the cost implications. Indeed, he implied that local authorities could absorb the cost in their normal functions. That cannot be the case. Digital switchover has been described as the largest civil project in this country for 30 or 40 years. Bringing local authorities within the scope of the Bill and accepting the amendment, which would bring metropolitan district authorities within its scope, have serious financial implications. I hope that the Under-Secretary will deal with that when he responds to my remarks and those of the hon. Member for Bath, who is the expert on the matter after drawing it to the House's attention.

Greg Knight: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the amendment? It appears to me that it may be defective because, as I read the amendment and the Bill, the amendment relates only to councils in England. What happens in the case of a local government reorganisation in Scotland? Surely the amendment should cover all parts of the United Kingdom.

Edward Vaizey: My right hon. Friend is a vastly experienced Member and, I suspect, a much better lawyer than me, although I trained and qualified for the Bar many years ago. I confess that I was hitherto unaware of my right hon. Friend's point. Clause 5(1)(c) states that local authority means
	"in relation to Scotland, a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 (c. 39)".
	Given that I am not an expert in local government matters in Scotland, I take my right hon. Friend's point about possible local authority reorganisation there.

Robert Syms: I beg to move amendment No. 6, page 1, line 2, at beginning insert—
	'(1) In section 45(1)(c) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (c. 41) (unoccupied hereditaments: liability) after "year" insert—
	"(ca) none of the conditions in subsection (1A) applies".
	(2) After section 45(1) of that Act insert—
	"(1A) The conditions are that—
	(a) the whole hereditament has, subject to subsection (1B), been unoccupied for a continuous period not exceeding three months;
	(b) its owner is prohibited by law from occupying it or allowing it to be occupied;
	(c) it is kept vacant by reason of action taken by or on behalf of the Crown or any local or public authority with a view to prohibiting the occupation of the hereditament or to acquiring it;
	(d) it is the subject of a building preservation notice as defined by section 3 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 or is included in a list compiled under section 1 of that Act;
	(e) it is included in the Schedule of monuments compiled under section 1 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 (c. 46);
	(f) it is a qualifying industrial hereditament;
	(g) its rateable value is less than £2,200;
	(h) the owner is entitled to possession only in his capacity as the personal representative of a deceased person;
	(i) there subsists in respect of the owner's estate a bankruptcy order within the meaning of Parts VIII to XI of the Insolvency Act 1986 (c. 45);
	(j) the owner is entitled to possession of the hereditament in his capacity as trustee under a deed of arrangement to which the Deeds of Arrangement Act 1914 (c. 47) applies;
	(k) the owner is a company which is subject to a winding-up order made under the Insolvency Act 1986 or which is being wound up voluntarily under that Act;
	(l) the owner is entitled to possession of the hereditament in his capacity as liquidator by virtue of an order made under section 112 or section 145 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
	(1B) Where a hereditament which has been unoccupied becomes occupied on any day and becomes unoccupied again on the expiration of a period of less than six weeks beginning with that day, then for the purposes of ascertaining whether the hereditament has been continuously unoccupied for the period mentioned in subsection (1A)(a) it shall be treated as having been unoccupied on that day and throughout the period.
	(1C) For the purpose of subsection (1A)(a), a hereditament which has not previously been occupied shall be treated as becoming unoccupied—
	(a) on the day determined under paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the General Rate Act 1967, or
	(b) on the day determined under Schedule 4A to the Act, or
	(c) where neither (a) nor (b) applies, on the day for which the hereditament is first shown in a local rating list,
	whichever day first occurs.
	(1D) In subsection (1A)(f)—
	"qualifying industrial hereditament" means any hereditament other than a retail hereditament in relation to which all buildings comprised in the hereditament are—
	(a) constructed or adapted for use in the course of a trade or business, and
	(b) constructed or adapted for use for one or more of the following purposes, or one or more such purposes and one or more purposes ancillary thereto—
	(i) the manufacture, repair or adaptation of goods or materials, or the subjection of goods or materials to any process;(ii) storage (including the storage or handling of goods in the course of their distribution);(iii) the working or processing of minerals;(iv) the generation of electricity; and
	"retail hereditament" means any hereditament where any building or part of a building comprised in the hereditament is constructed or adapted for the purpose of the retail provision of—
	(a) goods, or(b) services, other than storage for distribution services, on or from the hereditament.".'.
	What joy we are going to have debating this Bill this afternoon! It is my pleasure to move amendment No. 6 and, first, I declare an interest: my entry in the Register of Members' Interests shows that I am a director of a property company and a building company and a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Building. When the amendments were tabled, an "R" should have appeared after my name to signify those interests. Could those with a pen please append an "R" in brackets after "Mr. Robert Syms"? I apologise to the Committee for that omission. The Bill has proceeded fairly quickly; it had its Second Reading only last Thursday, amendments had to be tabled earlier this week and we are dealing with the Committee stage less than a week later. I am sorry that my registered interests were omitted in all that haste.
	The Government committed themselves to making this change in the March 2007 Budget, as a result of the Barker review of land and planning that was produced in December 2006. There are different views about the benefits or advantages presented by Kate Barker. The Government also asked the Lyons inquiry to look into this matter, and when it published its report at the same time as the Budget, it broadly supported the measure.
	Today, we are trying to amend this extremely short Bill. Essentially, it has only one clause—we have seen many examples of one-clause Bills—and that it is a cause for concern for many of those affected by it. We tabled amendment No. 6 because the implications of the Bill are far-reaching. According to the Government papers explaining the Bill, it is expected that the changes will raise £1 billion—no small amount. Indeed, business rates in their entirety raise half as much as the total corporation tax take, so this is very big money in terms of what the Treasury raises. We are not talking about small change. The exemptions that the Committee must consider are very important.

Robert Syms: A startlingly large number of issues and subjects could be raised as relevant to the amendment. Every intervention throws up an important point that I shall have to reflect on. The generation of electricity is usually exempt. If there are concerns about this area, the Government might have to reconsider it if they do not accept the amendment and we do not then win the vote on it.
	There is a wide range of issues and concerns. One needs only to read slowly through the amendment to understand how many people and activities are affected, such as insolvency, ancient monuments, electricity generation, mining and quarrying. The Deeds of Arrangement Act 1914 is a key part of the overall legislation that ought to be exempted. There is concern about these matters because we did not have a consultation, and because people are unsure about how they will be addressed in regulations, as there will soon be a change within the Government. The Opposition are therefore anxious that measures should be included in the Bill.
	I meet constituents in my surgery who are faced with legal action; some of them are faced with cases and appeals. They are unsure about what will happen, and they feel angst. The proposed legislation will lead to a wide range of appeals, and it will cost many of our constituents a lot of money in trying to sort out whether they are liable. it is important that we make the situation as clear as possible by including measures in the Bill.
	It is important that when the Minister replies to the debate he gives a full explanation of why the Government went for a one-clause Bill that does not address the intricacies of this area of legislation, and why he might wish to reject the detailed, considered, thoughtful and beautifully crafted amendment tabled by Her Majesty's Opposition. If he were to accept it, that would save a lot of anguish, angst and difficulty for those affected by the proposed legislation. We heard earlier that it will raise £1 billion. That is a lot of money. There will be a considerable impact on many of our constituents. It is important that we have a debate on the range of exemptions, and that we have answers.
	Some people say that Parliament no longer matters. I disagree. The debates that we have, the questions that are raised, and the heated and detailed discussion about amendments that we have are an important part of shaping legislation, and the country that we love. Therefore, it is important that we fully debate these aspects of the Bill. If the Government do not accept our important and carefully considered amendment, they should make it clear why not. Our constituents think that it is important that they should know what the situation is.
	The legislation has been introduced relatively rapidly and it has substantial implications. It will raise a lot of money, but it will also lead to appeals and much case law. It is therefore important to put more information into the Bill. I look forward to the Minister's detailed response to my questions about why the Bill is so limited and why we cannot consider all the important issues it raises. I know that my hon. Friends who wish to speak are determined to stand up for the interests of their constituents. I know that the Minister has listened carefully to what I have said, and I hope that he will also listen carefully to my hon. Friends.

Greg Knight: Does my right hon. Friend share my view that (1A)(b) is too widely drawn? I shall give him an example. Say that a husband and wife jointly occupy a property. The husband assaults the wife and the judge makes an order that by law he is not to return to the property as long as his wife is there. He is then by law prohibited from occupying the property. Why should he escape paying rates?

John Gummer: My right hon. Friend is right to give that example. At the opposite end of the spectrum, if there is no reference to such issues, there is even more likely to be a difficulty. The point is that we need to have the discussion. I suspect that the Minister will not accept the amendment, although I would be pleased if he did so.
	The purpose of this House is to have the kind of interplay that we are having. Those in the Box, to whom we are not allowed to refer, will at least be thinking that when they prepare the regulations they will have to get that issue right, although they may not have thought of the point that my right hon. Friend raises. I must confess that I had not thought of it myself.
	The next example in paragraph (c) raises similar problems. If the local authority to which the money would be paid has itself stopped the building being occupied, it would be perverse for it also to be able to demand the money from the people who are not able to occupy it. But unless we make that clear, I can think of some local authorities that, either from perversity or by accident, would end up in that position. And they would say, "Well, Parliament did not make any reference to this point, so we have decided, given the generality of the rules under which we operate, we are going to charge. So you, Mr. Jones, you can't use your property, but you've got to pay for it." That would be manifestly unfair, and the possibility ought to be excluded.
	I am especially concerned about proposed subsection 1A(2)(d) in the amendment. I declare an interest in advice on planning matters, especially in respect of listed buildings and conservation areas. One problem with the present system is that the time taken to deal with building preservation notices has been extended in recent years. The people involved are extremely pressurised and often have to act precipitately to stop irredeemable and irrevocable changes. That is the nature of that sort of order and it may mean that the time involved is very much longer than what is envisaged in the Bill, with the result that, for good community reasons that the House would favour, people may not be able to enjoy the use of their premises in that period.

John Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. The matter is important for a second reason, which is that historic buildings must have an alternative use if they are to be maintained. Empty historic buildings, and especially the domestic type used for commercial purposes that would be covered by the proposal, do no one any good. In addition, I imagine that there will be more such properties, as wireless technology for example makes it possible to use previously unusable buildings.
	I have a problem with proposed subsection 1A(2)(e) of amendment No. 6, as I am not sufficiently well versed in the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1990 to be able to imagine how many monuments would be caught by the legislation. I suspect that few are rated, but I have done the Minister's job and he will agree that it is amazing to discover what peculiar things turn out to be rated under our system. I believe that bus shelters can be rated, so it would not surprise me to find out that some monuments would attract a rate. If none are, there would be no need for the proposal in the amendment, but if some are, the proposal becomes very important.
	Proposed subsection 1A(2)(f) is important, if we manage to define "industrial hereditament". It is interesting that we have retained a word that is more difficult to say after dinner than it is after a sober lunch.

John Gummer: My right hon. Friend makes a sensible point, but I am worried about the fact that some people may use the delay for their own advantage. If we can find a way to close off that option, I would be pleased but, on balance, I prefer to have the change rather than not.
	I turn now to the owner's estate bankruptcy order and the Insolvency Act 1986. I agree that that is a good Act and that it has clarified matters considerably, but we have reached the crux of the problem. The Government are right to want to ensure that empty properties make a proper contribution to the cost of services, but they must make sure that the provisions do not run counter to other legislation, and bankruptcy is a serious problem in that regard. If people are forced to pay to the state money that would otherwise go to people who have a prior demand, a prior requirement and in my view a prior right, they have a right to feel aggrieved.
	I would take it further, as I suggested in an intervention earlier. It is utterly wrong that the state, which can carry these things more adequately, has used its power to make laws to protect itself against the interests of individuals, for whom bankruptcy is a greater disaster. If I am a small business man and someone goes bankrupt, my bills are paid only after the bills owed to the state are paid. I find that unacceptable. The state is able to know how much it is likely to lose over any year and make proper provision. Unlike many individuals, it can carry that loss because it deals with such a large number of bills. All of us in our constituencies have seen cases of individuals who have suffered considerably as a result of bankruptcy. If we add to that the fact that, before creditors' bills are paid, the local authority will be able to take money for a property which is empty due to bankruptcy, it would be entirely unfair. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Poole for putting that issue in such a clear way in the amendment.
	Proposed new subsection (1A) (j) is just as important. It becomes more important in a sense because the present Government have made arrangements, which I supported, to take a broader attitude to bankruptcy—in the past, we have been too tight about it. The Americans have a better way of looking at it and as a result have been able to create many jobs; unlike us, people there have been prepared to take risks. Under the Government's arrangements we will have more deeds of arrangement so the subsection becomes the more important.
	That is also true of paragraph (k), which seems to complete the trio that covers everyone who might be affected by bankruptcy. I repeat that I am not seeking to support or protect the bankrupt. I am concerned about people who will be affected by a bankruptcy, a deed of arrangement or a winding-up order. The terms of the paragraph would mean that we were not providing circumstances in which the local authority could get its fingers on money that would be more properly used to redeem someone's debt.
	Paragraph (l) relates to the person in his capacity as a liquidator. I am involved in representing a constituent on such a liquidation. The ownership of the property is extremely important to any chance of my constituent getting a reasonable amount of the money that he is owed for medical supplies. His happens to be a very sad case. The fact that he has suffered in one of the longest liquidations in history, mainly as a result of actions taken by the previous Conservative Government, saddens me a great deal. If the liquidator in this hugely difficult process were to pay rates on empty buildings, I doubt whether by now there would be any money left for the people for whom the liquidation technically has taken place.
	I use my constituent's example because, were I in the Minister's place, I would think that paragraph (l) was not terribly important because in normal circumstances liquidations are relatively quick. Where things are owned abroad, liquidations can take a very long time. Although I am sure that chartered accountants have their uses—sometimes I wonder what they are—there is no doubt that they are not the fastest of people when it comes to liquidations. I hope that the Minister will take the terms of paragraph seriously because it could have extremely serious results.
	In most cases, although the local authority may not be the place where I would put what money remained in anything that amounted to a bankruptcy, the process is likely to be relatively quick. The amount paid to the local authority will not be too dreadful and money will be left for the real creditors. In the very long liquidation to which I have referred, the effect of the Bill could be very serious, so I hope that the Minister will take the amendment seriously.
	It is a pity that the Opposition have had to go to the difficulty of producing the list of examples of those things that should be exempted. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Poole will not mind my saying so, but Oppositions are not professional in terms of such matters. These are matters that civil servants—much maligned under this Government—are very good at handling. If the civil service had produced a list of exemptions for the Bill, many of the issues that we have raised would already have been dealt with. We could have discussed many other issues much more sensibly if the Government had done that work on the exemptions using their powers, opportunities and resources.
	In speaking in favour of the amendment, I want to say that it ought to have been significantly better and I am sorry that the Government did not take the opportunity to do the work. By saying that, I do not in any way cast doubt on the work done by my hon. Friend and his colleagues.
	The fact that we have produced so many questions in the short time that we have had to prepare the amendment, and after such a lack of consultation, argues for better consultation on such matters. Not only would the terms of the amendment been improved had they been included in the Bill presented by the Government, but the attitude towards the issue among the public, for whom the amendment will be an effective step, would have been greatly improved.
	The amendment is about ensuring that there will be fewer cases of people feeling hard done by by the system under which they labour. That issue above all brings me back, but in order, to the key concerns of principle. Taken together, this series of amendments would ensure that the legislation is seen by the public as fair, reasonable and knowledgeable, not merely thrown at them as so much legislation has been over recent years. Will the Minister be kind enough to take a message—I hope from the House, but certainly from me? One of the problems that has beset his Government is their unwillingness to go through these processes in detail, some may say boring detail, as we have tried to do in this case. They have put on the statute book primary legislation and, I regret, badly thought out secondary legislation and regulation, with the result that people are increasingly unwilling properly to accept Bills such as this one.
	The Government are right to introduce the Bill. They are right to rate empty properties and to insist that people contribute to the cost of services. They are right to ensure that all properties are available for use at a time when climate change must be fought at every level. What is wrong is that they have not given the House proper opportunity to debate the real issues—small though they may be—that affect our constituents.

Phil Woolas: I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on tabling an amendment that prompted such a comprehensive and thorough debate. The Committee owes him its gratitude. I have been enlightened by what I have learned this afternoon, such as what was said about the castles and ruins in Shropshire—ruins that do not pay rates anyway, but we have heard about them. Genuine congratulations are due to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne). What he has achieved with the restoration of a castle is welcome and will be noted.
	We also learned in the debate, which is on a tightly drawn amendment and not on Second Reading or Report, about the collection of classic cars in East Yorkshire. I was hoping that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) would tell us what they were, but I suspect, Sir Alan, that you would have stopped him, just as you are about to stop me now, so I will move quickly to the amendment.
	The problem with the amendment is not the justification or otherwise for the exemptions that it proposes, but a misunderstanding of what the amendment would do if it were written into the Bill. Let me explain why that is the case. I think that that will satisfy right hon. and hon. Members who have raised in depth concerns that were expressed on Second Reading. It is important that we respond to those concerns.
	When I read the amendment, it looked very familiar. As I looked into it, I realised that the amendment, subject to minor tweaking, is taken from the wording of the Non-Domestic Rating (Unoccupied Property) Regulations 1989, as amended. The regulations flowed from the Local Government Finance Act 1988, and it is the 1988 Act that the Bill seeks to amend. Putting the 1998 Act regulations into the Bill would insert into it exemptions that are already in place in such a way that we would not be able to change them, should we want to, without primary legislation. In other words, the exemptions are already there.
	The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made an intelligent and quick-witted point. I increasingly realise why he served in government for such a long time. In fact, I think that he was the longest-serving Local Government Minister, so I take what he says very seriously. Over the summer, we will consult on the regulations to take on board the points that interested parties, including hon. Members, may make. Putting the existing regulations into the Bill would not achieve what right hon. and hon. Members want to achieve.
	Hon. Members have referred to several problems. I could use the Aunt Agatha analogy, which is a good one. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) mentioned planning issues, which were also raised on Second Reading. Those and other problems already exist under the current time scale and rate of collection, and they would continue to exist whatever the algebraic formula in clause 1. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) is not here to hear that, but those points are not relevant to the Bill, although the amendment has given us the opportunity to explain the position.
	It might be of interest to Opposition Members, and indeed to my hon. Friends, to learn that the authors of the 1988 Act and the 1989 regulations were the late Sir Nicholas Ridley and his then Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I will contact the hon. Gentleman, who is a distinguished member of the Chairmen's Panel, to explain how his right hon. and hon. Friends have been trying to undermine his beautifully crafted laws and regulations. Indeed, I am doing no more than repeating the process that was undertaken by Sir Nick, whom I remember lobbying as a student. I always found that he gave us a very fair hearing although he was ideologically opposed to us. I do not know what he would have made of the smoking ban—I imagine that he would have been outraged.
	Section 45 of the 1988 Act sets out the liability of unoccupied hereditaments for business rates, and subsection (1) determines to which of those the liability applies. The liability includes, among other things, all hereditaments that fall within a description prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations. In other words, the 1988 Act gave the Secretary of State the power—subject of course to the passing of the necessary regulations—to determine the exact classes of unoccupied hereditament that should be subject to empty property rates. By means of some rather convoluted double negatives, the effect of the regulations is to include within the empty property rates regime all unoccupied hereditaments except those falling within certain specified classes of exemption.

Alan Haselhurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, page 1, line 9, after '(4A)', insert—
	'Where subsection (5) applies, the chargeable amount for a chargeable day shall be calculated in accordance with the formula—
	(A x B) divided by (C x 2)'.
	No. 4, in page 2, line 3, at end insert—
	'(2) For subsection (5) of that section substitute—
	"This subsection applies where on the day concerned, the hereditament is the subject of—
	(a) a planning application,
	(b) an application for approval of reserved matters or for the approval of details under a condition of a planning permission, or
	(c) an appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
	No. 5, in schedule 1, page 5, line 20, at end insert—
	'(1A) For the purposes of any regulations, the state of any property shall not be deemed to have been changed by the carrying out of operations in accordance with a planning permission.'.

Michael Gove: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I thank you for the advice that you and your office extended to me, and to my hon. Friends, in framing and tabling the amendments.
	I apologise for not having been here for the opening of the Committee stage. I spoke in the debate on the Ways and Means resolution, and also on Second Reading, and opposition to the measure and scepticism towards it are close to my heart. I was genuinely sorry that I could not be here for the beginning of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms). I know that he made an admirable and cogent case, but I am afraid that I was detained elsewhere on family business.
	The amendments fall within two groups. They deal with the broad question of planning and land use, but amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are naturally grouped together, because they form part of one coherent argument, and amendment No. 5 is separate, because although it deals with planning matters, it relates to a different part of the Bill and is meant to deal with a different specific eventuality.
	Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are essentially tests of the Government's integrity. Amendment No. 5 is an attempt to achieve the Government's intentions more effectively than we believe the Bill itself is capable of achieving them. In that respect, whether the Government accept amendment No. 5 is a test of their sincerity. If Ministers genuinely want to achieve the goals stated in legislation and argued for by them in earlier debates, we believe that they will have to accept the amendment.
	Let me briefly explain why we tabled amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4. They deal with a new and specific exemption that we wish to introduce. In our debate on amendment No. 6 we discussed the whole question of exemptions, their appropriateness, and whether they should be contained in primary legislation or in secondary regulation to be presented at a later date.
	The Minister accepted that there were exemptions that should be included in primary legislation. We had a brief exchange on the subject when I intervened on him. I am afraid, however, that his customary authority lapsed at that point, because he presented us with a circular argument. We pointed out that we wished to introduce a whole set of exemptions that were entirely in accordance with custom, practice and previous legislation. Cases for all those exemptions were made with exemplary clarity by my hon. Friends. The Minister's case against the exemptions was that it would be inappropriate to deal with them in primary legislation, but he accepted that the Bill contained exemptions for charities and sporting ventures—because, he said, they were in primary legislation.
	That is a circular argument. The Minister is saying that an egg is an egg is an egg, because he says that it is an egg. I am afraid, however, that this combination of yolk, albumen and shell is not an egg, because it does not pass muster with me. There is no logical reason why one exemption is in primary legislation and another set of exemptions are considered appropriate for secondary legislation, other than precedent and ministerial edict.
	We know that the Minister is capable of logic, reason and fluent argument. We have seen him display that capability many times at the Dispatch Box. It is incumbent on him now to explain to us why certain exemptions must be in primary legislation while others are fit only for regulation. It will not be good enough to argue, as he did earlier, that a period of consultation is necessary before we introduce exemptions. That argument would strike at the heart of the Bill. On Second Reading and in the Ways and Means debate, Conservative Members argued for consultation. Why? Because when Sir Michael Lyons introduced the idea of removing or amending the relief for empty properties, he argued explicitly that there should be consultation before business rates were reformed, probably in about 2010. The Government chose not to engage in that period of consultation. Instead, they decided to legislate precipitately in what was characterised in the previous debate as a rush to plunder.
	The Minister, and the Government, cannot have it both ways. They cannot say, "We need to consult on the exemptions before we produce secondary regulation. All that can happen in good time, my dear man," and at the same time say, "We need to produce this legislation quickly." They cannot say, even by implication, "I am afraid that when he requested consultation, Sir Michael Lyons was insufficiently seized of the importance of the importance of legislating quickly," and then, when it is convenient to them, say, "We believe that Sir Michael Lyons was wrong to call for consultation then, but we need consultation now."
	The Government must explain why when consultation occurs, it is always on their terms and never on anyone else's. They must also explain why, having gone to the trouble of asking Sir Michael Lyons to make a series of recommendations on this measure and on local government finance in general, they accept only the measures that they can introduce quickly, and which automatically yield revenue, and why they have not given adequate consideration to those other thoughtful—and perhaps more complex, but none the worse for that—series of arguments that enjoined on them a degree of caution in proceeding.  [Interruption.]
	The Financial Secretary to the Treasury asks from a sedentary position, "What about the amendment?" As I am sure he is aware, there are in fact three amendments—Nos. 2, 3 and 4—which come together, and there is also amendment No. 5. Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 deal with planning and land use. The Financial Secretary and his junior—although perhaps not junior for much longer—the Economic Secretary put it to us in the original Ways and Means debate that the principal aim of the Bill was the more efficient use of land.
	That cause is dear to the hearts of all Members present. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) serves on the board of a housing association, and my hon. Friend the Member for Poole is greatly interested in housing matters, and I know that they are keen that land should be used more efficiently, whether for housing or commercial purposes. However, the suggestion that the Bill is all about the more efficient use of land was undermined by the presence at the Ways and Means debate and on Second Reading of the Economic Secretary and the Financial Secretary. Why were they invited in to make the case for Department for Communities and Local Government legislation? Did the Treasury have no confidence in DCLG Ministers? Did the Treasury feel that the Secretary of State and the Minister for Housing and Planning were not capable of making the case? Heaven forfend.

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the Minister for taking that opportunity to clarify the position. I knew that he meant no ill by his comment. If anything, his comments in the previous debate were evidence of his ludic wit, not a reflection of any desire to condemn the operation of Palmer Capital Partners, or any other company. I am sure that the Minister's experience of Palma is greater than many other hon. Members' experience, and I am glad to know that when he went to Majorca his principal aim was to investigate how successfully it had regenerated itself economically. I suspect that that regeneration has been most successful in the catering, leisure and hotel sectors, and some UK cities should learn from that.
	It is appropriate to acknowledge that Palmer has had to abandon certain projects, because that is a real-life example of a company prevented by the Bill from going ahead with regeneration. Other companies in a similar position would benefit from the amendment. When properties are deliberately left empty to secure regeneration benefits, an extension of relief while planning permissions are dealt with would mean that the companies involved could bring forward projects that would not occur otherwise. If the Government are willing to stay their hand in a few cases, the resulting economic benefits would be enjoyed by everyone, but especially by people in the areas most in need of economic and commercial development.
	On Second Reading, we discussed the north-east as a case study of the effects of the Bill. The Minister referred to Eldon square in Newcastle, where rents are significantly higher than in other parts of the city, and implied that there was a dysfunctionality in the planning or local government finance systems that only the Bill could put right. However, it is impossible to gauge how effective the economic regeneration of the north-east has been without taking account of the fact that industry there has made its unhappiness with the proposals very clear.
	The Minister may not be familiar with Evans Easyspace, which operates out of North Shields in north Tyneside. A new commercial operation that it opened in July 2005 contains 17 small offices, and the same number of workshops. They are let to new and start-up businesses—exactly the sort of enterprises that a Government committed to regeneration would want to support.
	The centre is a success, having reached an optimum occupancy of 91 per cent., although the Minister will note that Evans Easyspace is already taking a hit because some properties on the site are not occupied. The company argues that if the changes proposed in the Bill had been in place when it was conceiving its enterprise, it would have had to pay an additional £53,000 in empty property rates. It says that that is a conservative estimate, and that the sum of money involved might have made the difference between deciding to going ahead with the project and staying its hand.
	There is high demand for jobs in north Tyneside, so how can the Government put forward a Bill that companies in the area consider to be entirely counter-productive? What would the Minister say to Evans Easyspace and other enterprising companies that choose to locate in areas where their services are most needed, and which are explicitly concerned about the potential effect that the Bill as it stands will have on future investment?
	I accept that when developers gather parcels of property for regeneration, the seriousness of their intent to use all the sites that they have amassed in that geographical area can be open to doubt. It may well be that some of those sites are meant to form part of a regeneration project, but other sites, offices or premises may be left vacant for longer than would otherwise be wise or prudent. That is an extremely unlikely eventuality. As I explained on Second Reading, I do not believe that there is widespread economic masochism in the commercial property sector. I believe that most people who have chosen to take a risk and invest in commercial property recognise that it is appropriate to ensure that there are tenants in the property generating income which can make their investment worth while.
	However, I will allow that it is theoretically possible that land on which a return could be made is not used to maximum efficiency at a given point. That principle is accepted in the broader debate on land use when we come to talk about land banking. I can see the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) nodding thoughtfully. As a member of the Select Committee that scrutinises the Department for Communities and Local Government, I know that she has been doing some work on the subject. Individuals, for whatever reason, choose to stockpile land that is developable and hold it back off the market in the hope perhaps of making a capital gain rather than to see it used in the most efficient way.
	It is appropriate that we get land banking in context. I am sure that the Minister will be aware that the principle of deliberately holding land back and not seeking the maximum return on it is at the heart of the Bill and it is something that we question. There is some useful evidence that calls into question whether such hoarding of space that could be more effectively used economically takes place. A letter was published in the  Financial Times today from the executive chairman of the Home Builders Federation, who points out that in 97 per cent. of developments that have implementable planning permission builders have been on site within three months. That reinforces the truth that most operators are only too eager and willing to see the land on which they have secured planning permission used for commercial ends.
	We accept that in certain circumstances people might conceivably hoard land. The amendment ensures that in any case in which that suspicion might arise it can be effectively erased. It covers those organisations or individuals who are in the planning process. They might have had planning permission turned down and are waiting for the planning inspectorate in Bristol to give its ruling so that development can go ahead. Given that seeking planning permission is of itself prima facie evidence of an intent to develop, and it is not a cheap process or one that anyone would undertake lightly, if a planning application has been made for a site, it is pretty clear to us that the individual or organisation who owns that site wants to see it used in a healthy, vibrant, commercial fashion. They should therefore not be penalised in the way that the Bill proposes.
	The Government have introduced the Bill in the hope that land will be used more efficiently. What better test could there be of the willingness of individuals and organisations to see land used efficiently than the fact that they have sought planning permission for that site? If the Minister's original thesis is correct that some individuals deliberately hold back property on which they could earn a useful commercial return, whoever these wicked individuals are, they are clearly not people who are seeking planning permission or waiting for the result of an appeal from the planning inspector. So whatever wicked individuals the Minister wishes to catch with this legislation, the amendment will ensure that the virtuous are not affected.
	The Minister may argue that the inevitable cost of accepting the amendment will be taxation revenue forgone. However, I invite him to think about the cases in which such taxation revenue might be forgone: when properties remain empty and under-utilised because an individual is waiting for planning permission or for the planning inspectorate to rule. The answer to any lack of revenue that may be consequent on the passing of the amendment thus lies directly in the Government's hands. If they ensure through their reforms, which we are discussing in the context of the planning White Paper, that the planning system as a whole is effectively simplified and streamlined, it will ensure that, working hand-in-hand with local government, there will be no undue delays in the planning system. It will quickly be found that the change of use properties required to achieve maximum commercial return is granted. Industry will benefit. Users of those services will benefit and of course the Government will benefit because we will not have properties caught in limbo awaiting the result of a planning application and, consequent on the amendment, not paying tax.
	The challenge for the Minister is to explain why a Government who have introduced the planning White Paper, and hope to legislate this autumn to simplify the planning system, have insufficient confidence in their legislation to accept our amendment. If they are telling us the truth about the planning White Paper and the planning system there is no problem; there will be no delays—certainly none greater than three months—in granting planning permission and beginning development.
	As the Minister knows, specific targets have been brought in for planning applications; they vary depending on the size of the development and are measured in terms of weeks, but they are indicative guidelines only; some local authorities are better at meeting them than others—it is notable that Conservative local authorities are often more successful in that regard than Labour. Party politics aside, however, we recognise that the Government have through the planning delivery agreement system sought to incentivise the speedy processing of planning applications. There is, however, a problem with the PDA system; as it sometimes incentivises speed over the quality treatment of planning applications, it can lead to the premature rejection of planning applications because a local authority is anxious to meet its PDA targets. Good planning applications, which should be accepted, are peremptorily rejected. As a result, planning applications have to go to appeal and the whole process is elongated and made more complex.
	If the Government simply rely on PDA and existing instruments to guarantee that properties are not left empty and undeveloped for too long, we fear it will be insufficient. It is only through prompt implementation of changes to the planning system that the benefits that the Minister has described, and we recognise are required, can be brought about. I hope that when the Minister replies, he will explain the changes in the planning system that will ensure effective and prompt transfer of land from redundant and uncommercial use to successful commercial use. If he is as persuasive as he normally is, his arguments in favour of the planning White Paper and planning reform will in effect be arguments in favour of amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
	I have not yet talked about amendment No. 5, which is grouped with amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 for the convenience of the House because they deal with planning overall. However, amendment No. 5 is what might be termed a guards van to the rest of the train of my argument—it is connected, but it serves a different purpose. Amendment No. 5 deals with a specific part of the Bill that the Government have introduced following gentle pressure from the Opposition.
	In the Ways and Means debate, we contended that the Government were running a risk. When changes were made to empty property rating relief and when reliefs were withdrawn in the 1970s—I regret to say by Sir Edward Heath, but that is a separate matter—unfortunate and perverse, although almost certainly unintended, consequences followed. We had the unfortunate example of individuals who suddenly found that their empty properties were liable for full rates who felt that they had to vandalise their own property. Rather than pay—rather than pony up—for an empty site on which no commercial activity occurred and from which no commercial return could be secured, they defaced their own property. They pulled down the roof, stripped out the floor and damaged what would otherwise have been a commercially useful investment.
	When we put the reality of history—and therefore the real dangers of choosing to legislate again in the same manner—to the Government in the Ways and Means debate, they were to an extent dismissive. They said that they felt that the risk was being exaggerated. However, a few weeks later when we had the Second Reading, the Government, who had been a little dismissive at first, accepted that we had a good point and attempted to deal in the Bill with just such a perverse consequence. They said—I hope that I will not paraphrase them inaccurately—"If we have a commercial vandal who does violence to his own property, we will judge the rates payable on that property on the state it was in before the individual engaged in that act of economic self-harm and harm to the broader community and economy."
	On Second Reading, we raised some concerns about that. We could understand why the Government, having accepted our arguments, sought to legislate to deal with the issue, but we were concerned about proving intent. How can one be certain whether any changes that have occurred to a property are tax avoidance or whether they are legitimate? How can one make a window to a commercial property developer's soul?
	Amendment No. 5 is intended to provide the Government with a lifeline. We still think that the Bill is unnecessarily loose, so we have attempted to tighten it by a few notches to make sure that those whom it captures are smaller in number and more likely to be genuine commercial property vandals. The amendment would ensure that anyone who makes changes to their property in accordance with planning permission is not whacked in the same way by the Bill. It would allow an organisation or individual who had stripped out floors or taken off roofs as part of a commercially sensible or far-sighted change to continue to enjoy exemptions. It would include in the Bill clear protection for individuals who want to change their property in a way that is consistent with maximising long-term benefits from it.
	Amendment No. 5 deals with a separate part of the legislation, and a specific change that the Government have introduced, so it does not relate to the same clause as amendments Nos. 2 to 4 do. If we take several steps back and look at the train that is amendments Nos. 2 to 4, and the guard's van that is amendment No. 5, from an appropriate distance, so that we can see them all together and can attempt to judge them, or at least present them, to the House together, we see that one of the things that unites them is an attempt to ensure that the legislation covers only those people whom the Government have said that they intended it to cover. What all the amendments seek to do is to give effect to the Minister's stated intentions. If the Government are sincere in their belief that the legislation is all about the more effective use of land, and the more prudent development of commercial property; if it is all about ensuring that regeneration can proceed, and that small retailers and other small business have the opportunities that they should have; if that is the Government's stated intention, how can they willingly penalise owners who are seeking to improve their commercial property?
	If the Government choose to reject the amendments, they are rejecting their own logic, and are deliberately setting out to punish people who are taking a risk in the interests of the wider economy because the Government's primary aim is simply the acquisition of revenue at all costs. In that respect, the group of amendments goes beyond the scope of the Bill and strikes at the heart of the Government's intentions over the next two years. Will they legislate in the national interest? Will they take a sufficiently enlightened view of representations from citizens and other interests within our nation? Will they listen and learn, in the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and will they take a genuinely holistic view of the well-being of the nation? Or are they narrowly focused on what is currently in the Treasury's interests? That broad question—I submit that there can be no broader question—lies at the heart of these tightly framed amendments. It is because the amendments have been framed in the way that they have been that they give rise to that profound question.
	If the Minister is intent on promoting not just the health of the commercial property sector and regeneration in areas that need it, but on good policy formulation, he will have no problem accepting the amendments. However, if, as I fear, he is simply doing his new master's bidding, and is picking the pockets of the commercial property sector and its tenants in order to deal with the black hole that has been left after 10 years of improvident stewardship of the nation's finances, he will reject the amendments. We will shortly hear the Minister explain the reasoning behind his reaction to the amendments, but by tabling them, we have set a clear test. It is a test of intent, sincerity and policy, and it is a test on which we will judge—

Robert Syms: I beg to move amendment No. 1, page 2, line 22, at end insert—
	'(4) The third case is where—
	(a) the ratepayer is a community owned village hall or community centre, and
	(b) it appears that when next in use the hereditament will be wholly or mainly used for community benefit.'.
	We have had a long and detailed debate about exemptions this afternoon. A key part of the Bill is the Government's exemption for charities and sports clubs. We tabled amendment No. 1 because, although 86 per cent. of village halls are vested in some kind of charity, a number still might not fall within that definition. Even if 86 per cent. are covered as charities, an awful lot of village halls and community centres are still not covered.
	We have had many debates in the Chamber about the importance of keeping communities together and about of village halls and community centres, particularly in rural areas but also in many urban ones. They are of real value to our constituents. The purpose of the amendment is therefore to make it explicitly clear that such halls should not be caught by the Bill.
	For a number of years, I was a rural county councillor. I was always amazed by the sometimes bizarre and unusual methods by which people get village halls. Sometimes, farmers give a piece of land and build a village hall for the community. While, effectively, it is the village hall, its ownership might still be vested in a local landowner or prominent member of the community. That is why we moved the amendment.
	Such facilities are greatly valued. People often put a great deal of time into painting, upkeep and ensuring that the facilities are available to the local community. It would therefore be a pity if the Bill, a major revenue-raiser of more than £1 billion—the fourth largest raiser of money in the 2007 Budget—were to catch the small proportion of community and village halls that are not registered as charities.
	The Minister has a useful opportunity, before the end of play, to set out why the amendment should not be accepted. The amendment would reinforce the good aspects of the Bill, and, as we have heard, charities and sports clubs are covered by it. By slightly broadening the provision, it would ensure the survival of valuable community facilities. The Government should not intend those facilities to be affected by this revenue-raising change. I look forward to hearing his comments.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 It being after Five o'clock, The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means,  pursuant to Order [this day] proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
	 Clauses 1, 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
	 Bill reported, without amendment.
	 Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Phil Woolas: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	In earlier debates on this Bill, my hon. Friends the Economic and Financial Secretaries to the Treasury and I explained why the Government consider this Bill to be such an important piece of legislation. The current policy on the rating of empty properties is based on a set of economic circumstances that simply does not exist in the UK today, and which does not fulfil the requirement for the efficient use of property and the regeneration of brownfield sites to meet our housing needs.
	The Government's commitment to regeneration and to meeting those needs cannot be faulted, and I assure the House that that will remain the case, but I have also made it clear that devoting more than £70 million in tax relief every year to the owners of empty properties in Westminster is simply unjustifiable. Consequently, it is time to reform the blanket relied extended to empty commercial property. In place of that relief, the Government are moving their support for regeneration and renewal towards a brand-new, and much better targeted, 100 per cent. capital allowance for the renovation of property in our assisted areas. I strongly believe that that meets the points made by hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Joan Walley), Opposition Members and Liberal Democrat Members in interventions and in speeches.
	We have introduced this new allowance now, so that owners of unlet property in these areas can take advantage of the new incentive before the changes to empty property rates. Furthermore, we have consulted on a wider application of land remediation relief to a much broader range of contaminated and derelict brownfield sites specifically in order to promote efficient use of our developed land and to help protect greenfield sites. I believe that those two measures allow policy to meet the reasonable and correct objection made by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House that there are different types of market in different parts of the country. That point was made by constituency Members of Parliament as well as by hon. Members speaking on a wider policy agenda. I ask the House to consider the other measures that I have mentioned in the round with this measure. I hope that my hon. Friends, and Opposition Members, will see that the Bill is part of a much wider package of measures, supporting regeneration but also meeting the needs of business and our communities for active property markets and efficient use of land.
	We have decided that for charities and community amateur sports clubs there will be 100 per cent. relief from empty property rates. These organisations play such a key role in our society, often leading regeneration efforts, and the Bill offers substantial additional help to them. For the rest of the business community, this Bill will reduce rents and provide opportunities for new companies, expanding companies and companies wanting to join the most successful economy in the G7.
	I repeat what I said in the Ways And Means debate and on Second Reading. We have the successful policy of linking business rates—or non-domestic rates as they are properly called—to the retail prices index cap. As that business rate is based on rental value, not capital value, the successful implementation of the policy in bringing rents down over the years will indeed, as the Red Book acknowledges, see a diminution in the revenue that it generates, the more successful it becomes. That is the serious answer that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary gave to the serious objection that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) has raised.
	This is, of course, a revenue-raising policy. It was a policy announced as part of a Budget package and its process through the House has been unusual. I am grateful to the House authorities for their guidance and advice in this regard. However, it is far from the case that the Bill is simply a matter of raising revenue. It also embodies a policy on land use and properties, and our own Red Book acknowledges that there will be a diminution in the revenue raised. As the cap on business rates exists, the total yield from business rates cannot rise higher than inflation.
	It is undoubtedly the case that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made a huge contribution to growth in the UK economy and to moving it into a state fit to compete with the best in the 21st century. He has provided research and development tax credits, a boost to science budgets and lower rates of corporation tax—which of course have to be taken into account when considering the proportion of revenue raised from business rates, because corporation tax has come down, and come down again this year. In addition, there are new investment allowances for all firms. Those are all parts of an economy that can also deliver a minimum wage, expanded support for child care and greater protection for the elderly and most vulnerable in society.
	There is one league table that we are not willing to sit atop—the ranking of rents paid by firms to locate in our towns and cities. High rents might be a sign of companies recognising the attractiveness of locating in the UK, and to some extent a marker of how successful we are, but in a global economy they are not the measure of success we want, nor something we can afford in the long term. Let me reiterate: we are not saying that high rents are a result of landlords deliberately playing the market. We recognise the value and importance that property investment and property developers play in our economy.
	Nevertheless, we have been presented with recommendations from the Barker report—Kate Barker is one of the country's top economists—and from Sir Michael Lyons, the leading expert on local government finance and incentives, both of which pointed to what my hon. Friends at the Treasury would call the "supply side" advantages of reducing tax relief for empty property, so as the Chancellor made clear to the House on Budget day, we are introducing the Bill both to answer criticisms that supply is distorted by the current relief and the different treatment of types of property, and to provide new opportunities for start-up and expanding firms.
	However, we are not insensitive to the possibility that conditions can change, which should not be seen by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath as a weak link or an admission that we are heading for recession. That would be unfair and ridiculous, but of course I know that he would not say such a thing. I pick up  The Times every day to see what he has written. I enjoyed his column about "Big Brother", and strongly agreed with him; I was grateful that he did not write about the Bill—although not as grateful as his readers will have been.
	Unlike the last time such a policy was considered, I am not suggesting to the House that the rate of tax be set in stone so that it is impossible to respond to changing situations. That is why we took the approach in the Bill—the point came out during our debate on the first group of amendments. Similarly, we know that leaseholders holding unwanted property are an important group for special consideration; hence our agreement to consult on how best to introduce in the tax system recognition for payments made by companies to rid themselves of onerous leases. Nor are we attempting to remove the returns from property that many investors enjoy; a Government with a track record of introducing real estate investment trusts, providing a framework for parallel treatment of property held by authorised investment funds and maintaining the stable growth in the economy that is the basis of strong demand for property could not fairly be accused of that.
	I hope, therefore, that our willingness to look at the issue in the round and to be flexible in our legislation, as well as the package of measures and ongoing consultations, will serve as proof to the House that this really is a measure to expedite change for the better, and that we will continue to provide help where it is most needed. This is a short Bill, but it will deliver important economic, social and environmental results so I hope that Members on both sides of the House will wish it speed. I commend it to the House.

Michael Gove: And the  Evening Standard. The Minister sought to convince us that because the FSB had supported a change in the legislation we should accept what he was trying to bring about. However, on Second Reading we heard from my hon. Friends that the case made by the Federation of Small Businesses was much more nuanced than the Minister might have led us to believe.
	Even if the Federation of Small Businesses might appear to be a supportive, if equivocal, witness on the Government's behalf, the weight of its testimony was overborne by the weight of testimony from other organisations, which were critical of what the Government sought to put forward. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Confederation of British Industry, the British Property Federation and the British Retail Consortium all felt sufficiently moved to argue outside the House that what Ministers were advancing was directly contrary to the commercial interests not just of their members but of the country. However, Ministers did not address their arguments head on, or accept that the competitiveness and flexibility of the commercial property market would be hit by the measure. Because they failed to acknowledge that, I have to say that—however eloquently they defended their position—the case was not made.
	I suspect that the question "Why do properties lie empty?" is at the heart of the Department for Communities and Local Government's aim in bringing forward the legislation; it is certainly at the heart of what the Minister claimed was its aim. On Second Reading, Opposition Members brought forward a compelling narrative that explained why vacancies and voids occurred. Vacancies and voids are a natural consequence of a healthy market; we made the point that in the commercial property sector they sometimes last between 12 and 24 months, as one business winds down and a new business is put in place. We said that the legislation, which will end relief after three months, takes no account of the pace and tempo of operations in the commercial property sector. Furthermore, in debate on the Ways and Means resolution, on Second Reading and in Committee we pointed out that the real reason why properties lie empty and unused when they could be put to good commercial use derives from the planning system.
	In our previous deliberations, I remember my hon. Friends the Members for Salisbury (Robert Key), for St. Albans (Anne Main), for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) pointing out a variety of examples, taken from their constituency casebook or furnished to them by interested parties, of cases in which commercial concerns wished to see their properties filled, but were prevented from filling them by the operation of the planning system.
	When we discussed the Bill in Committee, we put it to the Minister that he should seek to amend the legislation to take account of the weaknesses in the planning system. We said that he should, at the very least, furnish us with evidence that the planning White Paper and the legislation consequent on it would deal with those problems. Regrettably, he once again disappointed us. He certainly showed—I am grateful for his sensitivity in acknowledging it—that he was aware that our case was not ill-founded, frivolous, or made in a spirit of partisan wrecking. He acknowledged that all the points that we made were genuine and rooted in the experience of our constituents or commercial organisations with genuine expertise. He acknowledged that, and we thank him for it, but he did not provide any measure of intellectual relief, as it were; he did not show how the changes that the Government would make to the planning system would ensure that property was used in the most effective way.
	When talking about planning and the justification for the measure before us, the Minister prayed in aid Barker and Lyons. They were the two presiding deities in whose name the Bill was introduced—but again, one of the things that he failed to acknowledge throughout our debates was the fact that he had been quoting selectively from the Barker review and the Lyons report. The Barker review made it clear that when considering non-domestic rates, it was important to acknowledge that relief was a balancing mechanism; relief is there to ensure that when no commercial activity is taking place, no taxation penalty is exacted. There has been no reflection of Barker's acknowledgment of that balancing mechanism either in the case that the Minister made or in the legislation.
	As for Sir Michael Lyons, the Minister calls him perhaps the greatest expert on local government finance that we know. I respectfully submit that when it comes to authorities on local government finance, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles)—and the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), for that matter; I am happy to concede that point—are entitled to take their place alongside Sir Michael. Nevertheless, we both agree that Sir Michael Lyons is a pretty big cheese in the world of local government finance. Why is it, then, that the Government are prepared to take only the crumbs that they consider savoury, and push the rest to the side of the plate?
	Sir Michael Lyons made it clear that changes to non-domestic rates should be taken in the round, should be introduced after consultation, and should not be made before 2010. As we have pointed out at every stage, the changes are piecemeal, and they are being introduced early, after inadequate consultation, simply so that we can ensure that the Treasury is satisfied with its yield.
	The Minister mentioned his hon. Friends in the Treasury, which put me in mind of the television series "Our Friends in the North", because the Opposition inferred that the legislation was introduced by friends in the north, who were the heavy mob. In the presence of the Financial Secretary by the Minister's side, we see a representative of management who is here to ensure that the legislation delivers what it was meant to deliver: a tidy sum into the coffers—no questions asked, squire—to ensure that the big guy in No. 11 gets what he wants. It is for that reason that we find the legislation profoundly unsatisfactory. It has been introduced to balance the books, which an improvident Chancellor over the past 10 years has failed to balance in the nation's interests.

Helen Goodman: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the complex issues of the north-east regional spatial strategy. The regional spatial strategy is the blueprint for future development in the north-east, so, if we are to flourish, it must reflect the needs and aspirations of the region. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that his objective is to equalise growth rates across the country. Under the Northern Way strategy, it was agreed that our objective should be to narrow the output gap of £29 billion between the north and the south. Despite claiming to be a document that will tackle deprivation, create a buoyant employment market, and adopt an holistic approach to climate change and energy use, the detailed plans completely fail to do that. On this matter, County Durham speaks with one voice. All the local authorities, county and district, and all the county's Back-Bench MPs are united in our concern about the plan.
	Our argument is clear: the regional spatial strategy underestimated the potential for new investment, economic growth and jobs. In doing so, it put a clamp on our excellent, existing employment sites. Consequently, housing allocations are too low and the transport plans inadequate. By concentrating development in the city regions, it does nothing to cut travel-to-work distances, promote sustainability or counter climate change.
	NETPark is a highly successful collaboration between Durham university, the county council and the private sector. Let me give one example of what has happened in my constituency as a result of our having NETPark in County Durham. Thorns, the lighting manufacturer, which has its headquarters in Frankfurt, has decided to build a wholly new site, guaranteeing 600 jobs for another 20 years, partly because there is collaboration between the private sector and the university to develop organic lighting at NETPark. That is the best of modern manufacturing. However, by limiting the development at NETPark to 13 hectares instead of the proposed 49 hectares, the regional spatial strategy compromises its stated goal of facilitating north-east regeneration through what it calls
	"a significant expansion of the knowledge economy."
	A 49-hectare development at NETPark would bring in an estimated £100 million in project investment and create 10,000 jobs. It would also support the further expansion of Durham university. In the Prime Minister's words, it would
	"create the wealth and prosperity which will generate sustainable jobs and a vibrant, confident North East".
	Similarly, a proposed film and media complex at Seaham in Easington would facilitate residential development and university expansion, create 1,800 jobs and generate nearly £200 million of inward investment. Instead of the green light being pressed on that development, it has been put on amber.
	Durham county council estimates that the proposed expansion of Heighington Lane West in Sedgefield and the Tursdale regional freight facility could create an additional 11,000 jobs in the region. The latter has been blocked and the former is to be re-examined.
	By failing to sanction the proposed expansion of the biofuels plant at Seal Sands and a renewable energy village at Eastgate, the regional spatial strategy makes it difficult to transform the north-east into a thriving green economy.
	Instead of the knowledge-based economy that we want and believe to be completely possible, we are, as the North East chamber of commerce says, contemplating a low wage one. It is little wonder that the North East chamber of commerce has criticised the strategy for
	"stifling the emerging dynamism of the North East".
	 The Northern Echo has launched a "Shaping the Future" campaign asking the Government to reconsider the proposals.
	Not only does the regional spatial strategy assume that, between now and 2021, growth in the region cannot exceed 2.8 per cent., but, by placing restrictions on the employment and housing sites, it will prevent growth from being higher than that estimate.
	In other words, the regional spatial strategy is planning for failure. The negative impact of those gloomy growth forecasts is felt most acutely in the housing allocations. Despite net inward migration, which the north-east has experienced in recent years, and the poor quality of housing stock, the regional spatial strategy plans a net increase of 6,500 new properties a year—a small fraction of the 120,000 homes a year that the Barker report stated was necessary nationwide.
	Although I appreciate the need not to overdevelop in specific areas, especially on the western side of my constituency, to protect the beauty and tranquillity of the local environment, a high level of sustainable development is clearly possible in the north-east. In County Durham, the regional spatial strategy proposes only 19,000 net housing additions between now and 2021, which equates to 1,100 homes a year. However, the county council believes that we need at least 1,300 homes a year simply to maintain the population at its current level.
	Indeed, the Wear Valley 2004 urban capacity study concluded that, in my constituency of Bishop Auckland—I hope that the Minister for Local Government realises that it has twice the national rate of homeless households—there was substantial additional scope for building new houses on brownfield sites. Indeed, if the regional spatial strategy aspires to go beyond its conservative ambition of building 70 per cent. of new houses on brownfield sites, it is essential to consider those in Wear Valley and around Bishop Auckland.
	In County Durham, where the regional spatial strategy predicts population decline, the latest Office for National Statistics figures suggest a 3 per cent. population increase. That further highlights the need for the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to re-examine the figures before committing to binding proposals.
	Let me consider transport. Two years ago, shortly after I was elected, we held a conference on the local economy. Local businesses raised the major issue of poor transport connections, which anyone who has travelled along the main road through Yorkshire or tried to drive north to Scotland has experienced. There is also significant overcrowding on the east coast main line. We in the region are united in our view that Teesport is a vital development. Yet on none of these issues is there any firm commitments.
	I am sure that you will appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the very great frustration that we feel over this spatial strategy. Moreover, I find the document's underlying premise incomprehensible. We are not setting out to compete with our colleagues in Newcastle, but the fact is that we are constantly hearing from Members who represent constituencies in the south-east that they are overdeveloped, that there is congestion and excessive housing development—yet in the north-east, we are crying out for more. I very much hope that the Government will not endorse this plan for failure and will look again, so that we can fulfil our potential.

Peter Atkinson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) on securing this Adjournment debate. It has proved extremely timely and I have to say that I agree with her. One of the arguments that she has put forward against this plan applies equally to many areas in Northumberland. I represent a rural area, which will suffer from virtually no development over the period of the plan. Indeed, Tynedale council has an allocation of fewer than 200 houses over the next five or six years—totally inadequate.
	Many families in my constituency wish to own their own homes. I am not talking about affordable homes, which is a somewhat separate matter, but I am referring to ordinary families who want to own their own houses, but who are increasingly priced out of the area because my constituency now has million-pound houses: the era of million-pound houses has arrived. People cannot afford to live there, so families are moving from rural Northumberland areas into the Durham area, where they can sometimes buy houses cheaper, particularly around Consett. That can break up families and the loyal connection that many people have developed with their communities.
	If that trend continues, the very people on whom rural communities depend to provide services in future years will not be there. We can see the problem in places such as Gloucestershire and we do not want to repeat the same mistake, having to bring in people from the cities to run shops, entertainment centres, pubs, hotels and other services in country areas. We want to maintain a healthy, balanced community and the regional spatial strategy simply does not meet those requirements.
	The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland also mentioned transport and I suspect that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will have a lot to say about it, too. The A1 Newcastle western bypass is the most heavily used dual carriageway in the UK, and we have been promised time and again that there will be a review of the problems caused by that congestion. We were told that the Department for Transport had a plan on how to improve that highly congested bit of road, but the regional spatial strategy has now changed the terms of that plan by stating that the Department is only "investigating" the prospect. We have moved from a situation in which we were encouraged to believe that there would be a plan to solve the problems within the next few months to one in which the problem is simply being investigated, as the appropriate paragraph of the regional spatial strategy makes clear.
	The regional spatial strategy also talks about "investigating" improvements to the Tyne and Wear metro system—a very important part of transport infrastructure, which is now 30 years' old and beginning to show wear and tear. Nexus, the transport authority, had put forward a plan for its modernisation, but once again, the regional spatial strategy has downgraded it to a problem to be investigated.
	I agree with the hon. Lady and I believe that the regional spatial strategy is, to use an awful cliché, not fit for purpose. I hope that the Government will go back and revisit it once again.

Kevan Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) on securing this timely debate. The regional spatial strategy has more to do with the era of Soviet-style planning than a modern dynamic economy such as the north-east's. It will put a stranglehold around County Durham, which will affect not only jobs and industry, as my hon. Friend has articulated, but, more importantly, as the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) has outlined, the actual make-up of communities. I would like to concentrate mainly on the housing element of the regional spatial strategy.
	My constituency is growing in size because people are moving to County Durham for some of the reasons that the hon. Member for Hexham has outlined. If the proposals are agreed to, not only will the number of new house builds in my constituency not meet the existing demand, but house prices, which are already quite high, will go through the roof. The proposals would also not allow councils and other agencies to redevelop some of the former mining villages in my constituency. When I was elected to this place in 2001, one of the first things that I did was to ask Northumbria university to carry out a study of the dire need for housing and redevelopment in those villages. Chester-le-Street district council has taken on board some of the findings of that report, and it is using some of the development sites to cross-subsidise other developments involving social housing and other projects in the villages. That redevelopment plan will be extended to other villages across County Durham, but unless we add to it the housing element that can be put to private development, the schemes will not stack up financially.
	It is ironic that such schemes across County Durham have been supported by central Government and by English Partnerships—they have worked up a plan with Government money—while at the same time, a restriction has been put in place that will prevent any of those developments from happening. That will be as bad as the old D-notices that were put on villages in County Durham during the 1960s and 1970s. Some of those villages will actually die, as the hon. Member for Hexham said, because people will not be able to afford to live in them. Furthermore, the population in those areas will grow increasingly old, which will put a great deal of pressure on social services and the remaining communities.
	I cannot over-emphasise how disastrous these proposals are for the future of my constituency and for County Durham. It saddens me that they are seen to be needed at all. I support proper planning regulation and local people having a say in their local district's unitary plans, but that is the way in which to do planning locally—we do not need some top-down centralist approach being put forward like this.
	When I asked about the public scrutiny of the strategy, I was told that the regional assembly had been overseeing it. I have to say that if this is an example of the assembly's scrutiny, it simply reinforces my view that the North East assembly needs to be abolished.

Kevan Jones: Is not the real point of the local plan that local people have an input in terms of dividing up their local unitary development plan? That would lead not to a free-for-all but to sensitive development, and at least local people and councils would have a say over it.